Ecumenical discussion founded upon historic Christian orthodoxy

Mercersburg Stuff

A few years ago I blogged a ton of quotes from various books on the Mercersburg school of theology. These are mainly books that came out in the early part of the 20th century, some of which were written by students of Nevin and Schaff. They are likely out of print now, and thus the quotes might be of some interest to everyone. I just put them all on my new blog in one easy-to-use category. You can check them out here.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

5 Responses

Is it safe to say that in many respects the FV may be identified as a revival of Mercersburg and the established Presbyterian denominations are responding along similar veins that Hodge did to Nevin? That may be oversimplistic, but it’s an observation . . .

There is some validity to your observation. An important difference though would be that Hodge, in taking up arms against Nevin, was not reacting against a theological movement which took root within his own denomination, so he wasn’t bringing anyone up on charges, calling for the defrocking of ministers, etc. Mercersburg was confined to the German Reformed denomination, and even there it had a rather limited number of adherents.

Also, while there is a revival of and interest in many of the things which were prominent in Nevin’s thought in a lot of what the FV folks are saying, there are also some marked differences. One notable instance would be Nevin’s outright rejection of Calvinist predestinarianism.

FV and Mercersburg certainly have overlapping interests, however, as Jonathan said, there are marked differences as well.

Jim Jordan has an essay called “Christ in his Supper’ which discusses Radbertus and Ratramnus and Nevin and Hodge. It is old as dirt and you’d likely have to get it from him directly, but in it you can see some of his criticisms of Nevin, though of course, he is sympathetic.

One point of divergence was on the role of the incarnation. Nevin, at times at least, seems to promote an Eastern Orthodox view of the incarnation as the decisive point of redemption. He uses this to support his doctrine of the Eucharist, and Jordan suggests that Calvin’s view is more reliant on the Spirit.

FV is also basically committed to creedal Calvinism. All proponents, as far as I know, are either WCF or 3FU. Mercersburg only subscribed to the Heidelberg Catechism, and thus had a little more freedom to reject the later predestinarianism of Dort.

And it is true that whilst Nevin had a Romanizing tendancy when he looked backwards, Schaff had a liberalizing tendancy when he looked forwards. Rich Lusk has cautioned against this polarization.

But of course, interest in Mercersburg is a wider phenomena. Lots of work has been done on it in the last fifty years, and many scholars involved are from PCUSA and UCC backgrounds.

It is definitely correct that Nevin was in many ways Eastern Orthodox in his theological orientation (this has been pointed out by a good number interpreters of Mercersburg). I would go so far as to suggest that if the EO church had an established presence in 19th cent. America which presented Nevin with a viable ecclesial option, he very well may have become Eastern Orthodox sometime before 1860.

This is little more than conjecture, of course, but it is pretty apparent from his writings, especially his disillusionment with Protestant sectarianism, that he would have at least considered it.

Thanks for the info Gentlemen. In both my MA and MDiv degrees at the ARP seminary, Nevin nor Schaff (except reference works) never came up that I remember, particularly in my Church and Sacraments course. My interest in Nevin is as many here and at Reformedcatholicism, et al, is the development of a high church, consciously covenantal Calvinism. I’ve had many people tell me to just bite the bullet and go to the local Anglican church, but I have a few issues. Regardless, I do believe God is up to something in all these discussions. Thanks again for your clear direction.